It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Re: Humanoid Aliens

page: 14
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


Let's just agree to disagree.




posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


lol i dont mind..


u know my postion for the record on this:

to be objective and understand we are still learning

In that respect i would find it most ignorant of anyone to think they know anything.

its better to understand first than to think you know and get it wrong

lets try to focus on the question and not the person asking it for it is as valid as the person who says its not,.,,

that is the nature of the game and humans,,

indigo_child...

understand this please.. we are right and wrong,,, its the question that matters more.



kudos to the therad and OP for what i think was a valid question..



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by symmetricAvenger
reply to post by qbik2008
 


does that mean im right when im wrong? LOl

oh lord what happend to the huminoid>>!

I agree with both camps in alot of ways... you have to, only why is that there r to many ways to have it work and have it not work, and most people us science ect, well we do alot but still .. moden day math and science is pushing the limits "ie" we are ALL getting smarter...

good thing i may add..

the more we question the better the outcome "i hope">>

but please try to put forth a reason for why and not just because we are here they are there,,,

I can say that but i try to go into details.. were as you dont base it on anything that i can see in your opening comment.

so can you say in what way you say we are here.. I DONT KNOW would be my guess...

or you do and u can say it in a way i can responed maths science biology god whatever whatever..

process!!


I was agreeing with your last post...sorry...didn't mean to sound Sarcastic....jus...havin...fun..is...all....



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by qbik2008
 


yes i used ur post as a platform for my responce






posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 

There seems to be a very strong preference for symmetry in nature, two eyes provide depth perception, and the evolution of light detecting organs such as eyes happens pretty much everywhere here on earth.


This makes sense in our planet however would this have something to do with cells growing by splitting and replicating. I cannot think of a species on earth that isn't symmetrical however I'm definitely ignorant on the subject.

I was just thinking if on another planet life on a cellular level grew by splitting into 3 would the creatures not tend to have 3 eyes and be trimetrical.

The main reason why people see bipedal forms is because they aren't too imaginitive I think. It's probably safe to say that the vast majority of sightings aren't real. Also didn't the rate of greys being seen grow dramatically with Communion being released?



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Krahzeef

Originally posted by rickyrrr
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 

There seems to be a very strong preference for symmetry in nature, two eyes provide depth perception, and the evolution of light detecting organs such as eyes happens pretty much everywhere here on earth.


This makes sense in our planet however would this have something to do with cells growing by splitting and replicating. I cannot think of a species on earth that isn't symmetrical however I'm definitely ignorant on the subject.

I was just thinking if on another planet life on a cellular level grew by splitting into 3 would the creatures not tend to have 3 eyes and be trimetrical.

The main reason why people see bipedal forms is because they aren't too imaginitive I think. It's probably safe to say that the vast majority of sightings aren't real. Also didn't the rate of greys being seen grow dramatically with Communion being released?


But what evidence exists to suggest cells dividing into three? also what evidence leads you to think that cellular division is the cause for symmetry?

Also, if you think that an imaginative approach is best, why do you selectively choose what to be imaginative about?

You sound very certain of what other people see. I though only "gods" had that ability.

As far as the rate of grey sightings, it may have grown of maybe not, Perhaps, since you have made that proposal in favor of your argument, it is on you to provide a link backing it up (not that I doubt it, I am pretty sure "imagined" sightings would go up when a movie is released for pretty obvious reasons.) that by itself is not sufficient to dismiss all reports.

-rrr



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Nope, as I explained before in many threads, and more vigorously in the debunking pseudoskepticism thread. ETH is not a quantity multplication, because ETH is a valid hypothesis and forms a part of our observable universe.


You miss the point.

Whatever assumptions you may want to make about life beyond Earth and the capabilities of Earth-like planets to support life they are still assumptions.* We do not know. The only place we know for certain supports life is Earth. Therefore, if the UFO phenomenon is driven by a non-human-intelligence, why assume it comes from another planet?

Which is why I asked about cryptoterrestrials.

*(I subscribe to the mediocrity principle so I am not criticizing these assumptions in-and-of themselves, and am playing Devil's Advocate in support of an idea I don't necessarily agree with).


[edit on 1-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Therefore, if the UFO phenomenon is driven by a non-human-intelligence, why assume it comes from another planet? Which is why I asked about cryptoterrestrials.


A logical conclusion is not the same as an assumption.

Which do you think more logical?:

A) That mankind has shared this relatively small planet for it's entire history with a race - or races - of cryptoterrestrials who are considerably more advanced than us and have craft well beyond our technology and yet have remained completely undiscovered and hidden for many thousands of years. They apparently wish to remain undiscovered - otherwise why have they not simply popped out from their holes in the ground, or whatever, to say hello? - and yet they fly their craft over major cities and nuclear installations etc.

Or.

B) They are ET's.

To use an analogy, if you came home and you found your house ransacked would you think it more likely that:

A) Unbeknown to you, a family had been secretly living behind the walls of your house for the whole time you had been living there, and crept out when you left the house? Or.

B) An intruder entered your house?

I'm not saying A is impossible, in either case, I just think it is less logical or reasonable. So the ETH is not an 'assumption', it is IMO, the most reasonable scenario.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Whatever assumptions you may want to make about life beyond Earth and the capabilities of Earth-like planets to support life they are still assumptions.* We do not know. The only place we know for certain supports life is Earth. Therefore, if the UFO phenomenon is driven by a non-human-intelligence, why assume it comes from another planet?

Which is why I asked about cryptoterrestrials.


There is a difference between an assumption and a logical conclusion. ET's existence is not an assumption but a logical conclusion derived from the assumption of earth-like planets harbour life. Which is just as valid as the assumption mass gives rise to gravity or time flows forwards in all places in the universe. It's a case of using scientific generalization.

As for the latter question on cryptoterrestrials, I think Malcram has already answered that better than I can. In short one would consider the best and most simple explanation and not multipy quantities unnecessarily.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Which do you think more logical


Neither. They are equally as logical.


Originally posted by Malcram
A) That mankind has shared this relatively small planet for it's entire history with a race...and yet have remained completely undiscovered and hidden for many thousands of years.


Have they? Consider two staples of UFO lore, ancient astronauts and government cover-ups. These could be as easily be applied to something like cryptoterrestrials.


Originally posted by Malcram
B) They are ET's.


Who, to use your words...


Originally posted by Malcram
...apparently wish to remain undiscovered - otherwise why have they not simply popped out...to say hello? - and yet they fly their craft over major cities and nuclear installations etc.



Originally posted by Malcram
To use an analogy, if you came home and you found your house ransacked would you think it more likely that...


Using a similar analogy, would you think it more likely that that one of someone from your neighborhood did it or would you think that someone flew all the way to Russia do it?



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
In short one would consider the best and most simple explanation and not multipy quantities unnecessarily.


Which is what you do with the ETH; you multiply quantities unnecessarily. We do not know if life exists on other worlds, despite whatever rhetoric you want to use to disguise that fact. We do know for a fact that it exists here. Why look to an unknown when you have already have a viable known.

And just as it is reasonable and logical that life may exist beyond Earth, it is just as reasonable and logical to believe we are not the first intelligent species that has evolved on this planet.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Neither. They are equally as logical.


I'm afraid not.



Originally posted by Malcram
A) That mankind has shared this relatively small planet for it's entire history with a race...and yet have remained completely undiscovered and hidden for many thousands of years.


Have they? Consider two staples of UFO lore, ancient astronauts and government cover-ups. These could be as easily be applied to something like cryptoterrestrials.


Hardly. There is a vast difference between occasional visitors not being well documented or covered up and and entire advanced civilizations of permanent residents going unnoticed.


Originally posted by Malcram
B) They are ET's.

Who, to use your words...


Originally posted by Malcram
...apparently wish to remain undiscovered - otherwise why have they not simply popped out...to say hello? - and yet they fly their craft over major cities and nuclear installations etc.


Again, there is a vast difference between ET visitors who perhaps don't mind being seen because they can leave the planet and an advanced cryptoterrestrial civilization, which obviously wants to remain hidden, flying their craft lit up like Christmas trees over major cities.



Originally posted by Malcram
To use an analogy, if you came home and you found your house ransacked would you think it more likely that...


Using a similar analogy, would you think it more likely that that one of someone from your neighborhood did it or would you think that someone flew all the way to Russia do it?


Except that your analogy is not at all analogous to the scenario and so does not apply. Your analogy is simply a restatement of your original point, which as I have demonstrated, is less logical because it creates all sorts of additional complications which render it less and less reasonable and likely, these you analogy does not include. They ETH, on the other hand, does not create such difficulties.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

And just as it is reasonable and logical that life may exist beyond Earth, it is just as reasonable and logical to believe we are not the first intelligent species that has evolved on this planet.


This misrepresents the issue rather. No one is saying that we are the first intelligent species that has evolved on this planet, but it is absurd to suggest that the idea an entire civilization of cryptoterrestrials, considerably more advanced than ourselves, squirreled away hiding from us, right under our noses one earth, is 'as logical' and reasonable as occassional ET visitors to earth as an explanation for the UFO phenomenon.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Which is what you do with the ETH; you multiply quantities unnecessarily. We do not know if life exists on other worlds, despite whatever rhetoric you want to use to disguise that fact. We do know for a fact that it exists here. Why look to an unknown when you have already have a viable known.


Already explained many times before. The generalization of life on earth-like planets from life on earth is just as valid as any scientific generalization. Unless you think science is also multiplying quantities unnecessarily.


And just as it is reasonable and logical that life may exist beyond Earth, it is just as reasonable and logical to believe we are not the first intelligent species that has evolved on this planet.


You are talking to someone who likes the Lacerta files. Yes, of course it is possible that there are intelligent species underground. I even believe that. However, it cannot be a part of our logical explanatory framework, because there is no real evidence they exist. The evidence that is available such as the Lacerta files is unfalsifiable. It's just a possibility, and you should know by now what I think about arguments from possibility?

Malcram's example was stellar. If you returned home to find that your living room is messed up and things are missing, you would not think, "Oh a secret people living inside the walls came out and messed everything up and stole things and returned into the walls", you would thik, "Intruder/burgler" That is because your mind itself obeys the rule of non-quantity mutliplication. It's a very sophisticated instrument you know, in single bursts of intuition it can synthesise data in a flash.

So I am afraid by equating the cryptoid hypothesis with ETH you are being logically inconsistent.

[edit on 1-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I'm afraid not.


Yes they are.


Originally posted by Malcram
Hardly. There is a vast difference between occasional visitors not being well documented or covered up and and entire advanced civilizations of permanent residents going unnoticed.


Not at all. You are making assumptions both about ETs and CTs that you have no basis to make.


Originally posted by Malcram
Again, there is a vast difference between ET visitors who perhaps don't mind being seen because they can leave the planet and an advanced cryptoterrestrial civilization, which obviously wants to remain hidden, flying their craft lit up like Christmas trees over major cities.


No, there isn't. Again, you are making assumptions about ETs and CTs, in particular their psychology and intentions, you have no basis to make.


Originally posted by Malcram
No one is saying that we are the first intelligent species that has involved on this planet, but it is absurd to suggest that the idea an entire civilization of cryptoterrestrials...is 'as logical' and reasonable as occassional ET visitors to earth as an explanation for the UFO phenomenon.


First, I did not say anyone was. Trademark distortion.

And again, you are making assumptions you have no basis to make. It is no more absurd than the extraterrestial hypothesis; the only reason you or Child believe it to be is because you are forced to make vast assumptions in order to pretend that the ETH is the only logical explanation. In fact, Cryptoterrestrials have a lot less complications than extraterrestrials. For instance, logically speaking, which is more likely to have an interest in human activity (especially nuclear weapons, to use your example from earlier) on this planet?

[edit on 1-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So I am afraid by equating the cryptoid hypothesis with ETH you are being logically inconsistent.


The only one here exercising logical inconsistency is you and Malcram. You fail to recognize that ETH multiples quantities and the cryptoterrestrial hypothesis does not.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rickyrrr
 


But what evidence exists to suggest cells dividing into three? also what evidence leads you to think that cellular division is the cause for symmetry?

there is no evidence of cells divinding into 3 it just does not happen on earth.. only single celled bactira devied in a single but then its symmertic because there was one, then turns into 2.. ie divides from one..

now the other part of the statement about cellular division - look at the words you use DIVISION.. to divide an equal amount between to things..

= symmertry

thats why your body is the shape that it is.. i can not see any reason why life would make its self more complex when the norm of our entire universe is simplicity..

suns are not square they are round... you are made as simple as possible just like the sun

Perfection is logical and symmerty is the way it happens.. the forces byhind symmerty is chaos..

think of the universe as a BIGGGGG question and everything inside the universe is the answer / or the result of the question..

life on other planets will ALWAYS follow the rules of the universe.. as it shows here on earth..

we are the norm becuase if we wasnt then the universe would be alot different than it is now!!



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 



Right, so I am sure when something goes missing in your home, you always think first "Oh, the secret people living in the walls stole it"



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


If you returned home to find that your living room is messed up and things are missing, you would not think, "Oh a secret people living inside the walls came out and messed everything up and stole things and returned into the walls", you would thik, "Intruder/burgler" That is because your mind itself obeys the rule of non-quantity mutliplication. It's a very sophisticated instrument you know, in single bursts of intuition it can synthesise data in a flash.

yes but this statement is based on conditioning and assumption

one you need to be aware that the possiblity of a burger is more than people in your house - conditioning since childhood., and second why do you not think about people coming out your walls?

that argument can be made for why do aliens look like aliens.. or even visit

its a very bad way to make a case for humans..

I did ask befor what was your methord "and dont say just coz we are here" as its of no use to me and is not my question.

your methord of calculating it is.. and im not trying to be smart here i just wish to understand how you and me can get to the same conclution of aliens beings looking similar to us.

cheers



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Right, so I am sure when something goes missing in your home, you always think first "Oh, the secret people living in the walls stole it"


Just as you must assume every time something goes missing that the only explanation is an intruder stole it.

Of course, both scenarios have happened.

Besides, humans live side-by-side with intruders in their homes every single day. And I do not mean the human variety. But ultimately, the scenario of missing items in the home is far too simplistic to be of any use as an analogy to a subject so complicated.


[edit on 1-4-2009 by SaviorComplex]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join